The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Golden Eye : Rogue Agent'.
Just in case you were in any doubt and was optimistic about EA's clear rip off here be the IGN review:
[URL]http://cube.ign.com/articles/568/568339p1.html[/URL]
[URL]http://cube.ign.com/articles/568/568339p1.html[/URL]
Page:
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Whoever said Command and Conquer should be shot from point blank
> range.
>
> Westwood made the Command and Conquer series what it is, EA tried to
> take it mainstream by completely toning down the strategy and making
> it a hell of a lot easier.
Actually, Generals was an EA product, Westwood was finished by that point. Admittedly most of the staff who did it were ex-Westwood, but some were EA dudes. Although, I suppose if you put some mediocre coders in with some decent ones, the mediocre ones will learn from and be directed properly, and thus put in a half decent performance.
> Whoever said Command and Conquer should be shot from point blank
> range.
>
> Westwood made the Command and Conquer series what it is, EA tried to
> take it mainstream by completely toning down the strategy and making
> it a hell of a lot easier.
Actually, Generals was an EA product, Westwood was finished by that point. Admittedly most of the staff who did it were ex-Westwood, but some were EA dudes. Although, I suppose if you put some mediocre coders in with some decent ones, the mediocre ones will learn from and be directed properly, and thus put in a half decent performance.
As long as you're happy :P
Oh well.
The most obvious thing ever. Yay.
lcarus wrote:
>
> A bit hasty with the "fools" part, eh?
Not at all. EA owning a company technically makes that company EA, I'm not disputing it, but we weren't talking about EALA or EABIG or whatever... we were talking about EA. And EA is the name of the publisher.
>
> A bit hasty with the "fools" part, eh?
Not at all. EA owning a company technically makes that company EA, I'm not disputing it, but we weren't talking about EALA or EABIG or whatever... we were talking about EA. And EA is the name of the publisher.
munn wrote:
> Technically then, though, it could still be good then?
Eh. I read another few reviews after the IGN one.
> Technically then, though, it could still be good then?
Eh. I read another few reviews after the IGN one.
What Icarus said, basically.
And I still stick by my original post. "When was the last time EA made an AAA game?"
And I still stick by my original post. "When was the last time EA made an AAA game?"
Whoever said Command and Conquer should be shot from point blank range.
Westwood made the Command and Conquer series what it is, EA tried to take it mainstream by completely toning down the strategy and making it a hell of a lot easier.
Who said 6 was a 'BAD' score anyway? 6 is above average and in the recent light of Half-life 2 which the whole IGN office played and tested I fail to see how any other FPS can get a fair trial.
That into consideration it looks okay.
Westwood made the Command and Conquer series what it is, EA tried to take it mainstream by completely toning down the strategy and making it a hell of a lot easier.
Who said 6 was a 'BAD' score anyway? 6 is above average and in the recent light of Half-life 2 which the whole IGN office played and tested I fail to see how any other FPS can get a fair trial.
That into consideration it looks okay.
Dringo wrote:
> Tphi wrote:
>
> Not at all. EA make alot of the games they publish.
>
> EA own the companies who make the games, but EA are a publisher...
No. They're called in-house developers. i.e. they are EA. A lot are made by external parties eg. Stormfront for Lotr games, Argonaut made the Harry Potter port on PS1, but many are from EALA, EA Chertsey (Harry Potter) or an EA studio with a different name. Of ocurse, there have been those that have been assimilated into EA (e.g. Maxis, EA Pacific from Westwooed - who are now part of EALA).
>
> Dringo wrote:
> Well if you are gonna be like that EA don't actually make any games
> as
> they are a publisher.
>
> fools.
A bit hasty with the "fools" part, eh?
> Tphi wrote:
>
> Not at all. EA make alot of the games they publish.
>
> EA own the companies who make the games, but EA are a publisher...
No. They're called in-house developers. i.e. they are EA. A lot are made by external parties eg. Stormfront for Lotr games, Argonaut made the Harry Potter port on PS1, but many are from EALA, EA Chertsey (Harry Potter) or an EA studio with a different name. Of ocurse, there have been those that have been assimilated into EA (e.g. Maxis, EA Pacific from Westwooed - who are now part of EALA).
>
> Dringo wrote:
> Well if you are gonna be like that EA don't actually make any games
> as
> they are a publisher.
>
> fools.
A bit hasty with the "fools" part, eh?
Crumble wrote:
> Ah, bless Acclaim.
>
> One of their 'few' great games and EA take the credit.
>
> Now that really does take the biscuit.
I thought Criterion made Burnout 3 - EA just added their little touch to it (EA Radio) and published it.
> Ah, bless Acclaim.
>
> One of their 'few' great games and EA take the credit.
>
> Now that really does take the biscuit.
I thought Criterion made Burnout 3 - EA just added their little touch to it (EA Radio) and published it.
Page: